"Do I really look like a man with a plan?"
- Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight
There are so many things to address with this, so it may take a little while. A quick disclaimer: there is some language, not much, but some. Don't judge me.
There's been quite a ruckus at town hall meetings across the country, as opposition to the President's socialist health care plan has risen substantially. And as would be expected, the supporters of the policy and the president, these democrats in Congress, and to a large extent, the media, have cast these protesters as extremists. And they call these town hall meetings theatre. Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times even shocks everybody that has bothered to breathe by citing racial fears of a black president as the reason for the opposition to universal health care. I'll have to check with Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, JC Watts, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, and well you get the drift, to see if their opposition or at least criticisms of such a plan are motivated by the fear of a black president. So Mr. Krugman, do us all a favor and stick to teaching economics at Princeton, so college juniors such as myself don't embarrass you on a regular basis.
Anyway, it is quite remarkable how these democrats have suddenly turned cold against the idea of town hall meetings, letting citizens speak their voice, and dare I say, some damn CHANGE. This past week, a controversy was stirred up over a poster with Obama on it, sporting the Heath Ledger joker-style makeup. The accompanying word was socialism. "Politically mean spirited" was how I heard it described. More politically mean spirited than the tired old "Bush Lied, People Died" shirts, posters, bumper stickers, hats? Once again, get over yourselves. The health care plan is socialistic in its design. And it's a joke. What's there to discuss? One of the things that was always so frustrating about George W. Bush was how his biggest supporters blindly defended him. And now we are seeing that surpassed under President Obama.
But let's get to the actual plan and its flaws and contradictions, and the hypocrisy of these people.
1. The President's position is that the "status quo" can no longer remain. This current system bankrupts families, business and government. However, as he puts it, "if you are happy with your plan and doctor, stick with it." So let me get this straight. It's an irreversible disaster, but we can stick with it if we choose to and not be harmed. Hell, give me one of those joker posters.
2. Another main supporting argument behind this plan is that it will save money and be a cost-cutting measure, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (about as non-partisan as you can get in today's political world) says that these proposals will increase health care spending, putting us even further behind budget.
3. Barack the Magician says we can cut down health care costs while theoretically providing health insurance to approximately 50 million more people. If any of you believe this, here's what you do. You take some aluminum foil, put it on your head, go sit in a closet, and turn out the lights. Then just sit there and think a while.
4. Now let's get to the uninsured, who won't have the option to get covered by the government plan. No, they will be MANDATED to get it. So people in my age group, who are healthy and rarely sick and choose not to be covered right now get stuck with paying increased premiums that will be more than any medical expenses in the long run because they didn't get the mandated coverage. Mr. President, if you can sense my middle finger pointing in your direction, I'd say you're a good guesser.
5. It's understood that the health care issue is critically important, and getting it right is critical, regardless of whether you support the universal system or not. But rather than making sure it's done right, these buffoons want to ram this legislation through Congress, not allowing time for it to be READ (wow, there's a radical freaking idea) and debated thoroughly. "We don't have time for that! It's morally imperative!" goes the generic democratic response. "And it will work just like the stimulus did when we rushed it through." (Even though the stimulus has done the complete opposite.) Well, it must not be too pressing, seeing as we can keep our plan and doctor if we want..supposedly. How about you put the entire thing on the Internet for us citizens to see? Isn't that what you promised, Mr. President? More transparent government? Bull.
6. One of the main determinations of the health care reformers has been not to screw it up like they did in 1994 with President Clinton. They say they have strayed away from all the tactical and procedural measures that doomed it the first time. But the plan itself hasn't changed much. Mandates, more regulations of insurance companies, government-managed markets. And a bonus "public option" open to all people and run by our government, which does such a wonderful job running things. The bottom line (That's what Joe Biden says all the time, usually when he is lying, but I'm not lying.) is that it is intellectually dishonest and condescending for these people to tell me that this plan will cut costs of health care by expanding coverage to 50 million more people and that even though this current system is unsustainable, I can still keep my plan and doctor and not be harmed.
7. Really one of the big goals is to bankrupt the insurance companies. It's people like John Edwards who constantly gripe about the way these companies pick and choose what to cover and what not to cover. Under this proposed system, these companies will be forced to cover everything. Let's use a little damn common sense. That will only bankrupt the insurance companies. And if the companies don't go bankrupt, by covering all this extra stuff, they will have to raise the cost of insurance. So assuming the CBO's estimates are accurate, and assuming this proposed system goes into effect, that means the government will be forced to look at cost-cutting measures. It most likely will be a combination of significantly high tax increases (making it harder on the people they claim to want to help) and DECIDING WHAT PROCEDURES AND MEDICINES TO COVER AND NOT TO COVER. It's amazing how stand up comedians even make a living in this country. If people just turned on the news and opened their ears, they'd get all the comedy they need.
8. Essentially, you're going to have a government-run bureaucratic system with all these assholes in suits overruling experienced and trained doctors on what to do all for the reason of bringing down the costs of health care. And by the way, where do you get all the new doctors to cover all these extra people?
9. Sometimes it's best to look at countries with these systems in place. Take Canada for instance. There are thousands of Canadians crossing over to get medicines and treatments here that it takes way too long to get over in Canada. And the reason they do that, plain and simple, is because despite what our politicians and President say, we have the best quality of medical care in the world.
10. This whole idea of the government controlling what procedures you can get covered for, what medicines you can get, what doctors can do is nothing new. It's just the same old tired business of the government getting a little more control of our life. A direct slap in the fact to the country's founding documents.
11. This is really for a different blog, but no matter how politically correct or rhetorically appealing it may sound, health insurance is not a right.
These politicians need to understand this opposition is not just from what they try to make people perceive as extremists. It's real opposition that may very well cost the democrats the House of Representatives in 2010 and worse in later elections. It's important for us citizens to educate ourselves about this issue and be able to call this bullshit when we see it. We just need to ask ourselves these basic questions.
1. If this system will be cost-effective and productive, then why are there so many problems with systems that are government-run, such as medicare, medicaid and veterans hospitals?
2. How can you cut health care costs by providing insurance to 50 million more people?
3. If it is imperative to fix the system, why do they insist we can keep our plan and doctor if we like? Does that imply if we choose the government option, which why wouldn't we if it's supposedly more cost effective, that we will be an overload on the system, thus throwing the plan on its face?
4. And finally, why are so many people coming over from countries like Canada to PAY for care here?
Many people in this country are acting like dogs running for a stick, but I'm not these people's dog.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
More Braves Stuff
Okay so once again, it's been a month since I have posted on this blog. I've been struggling with time and haven't been as inspired to write. And clearly I don't have a lot of people reading this blog, so I'm trying to link people to it from my Facebook. But with a new football season getting ready to start, I'll be providing a lot more on the sports front, and there's plenty to talk about the political world and many other subjects. Within the next week or so, I'll be giving some pre-season picks on football and be analyzing the baseball pennant races a little more closely.
The Braves were 38-40 when I wrote my last blog on here. Since then; 17-13. At 55-53, they are now officially two thirds through the regular season. Coming into play today, they are 6.5 games back in the National League East race and 5 games back in the Wild Card. With 54 games left, they theoretically still have a chance. But the fact hasn't changed that the Braves are still a .500 baseball team that I'm not convinced is capable of going on the tear they need to make the playoffs.
Let's look at the Wild Card leader San Francisco, who at 60-48 would finish 90-72 if they were to continue their current pace. To get the 91 wins needed, the Braves would have to go 36-18 the rest of the way. That's a .667 winning percentage. Two wins for every three games. It's not impossible but very hard to do. Clearly the many games the Braves blew earlier this year, as well as the three games they blew on the road right before the All-Star break are coming back to haunt them. They got a brutal wakeup call last weekend when the MLB-best Dodgers came into Turner Field and dominated, outscoring the Braves 17-5 and taking two out of three games. In reality, the Braves were very fortunate to win the one game they did.
And now tonight they start a four game series in Los Angeles. They'll need at least a split, and probably three out of four to actually convince me they're still contenders. My biggest point in that I am not convinced the Braves have a realistic shot is that they are behind four teams in the Wild Card race, five once you factor in that the Cubs and Cardinals are tied atop the Central Division standings. So they have to catch up with at least four of those teams to get in the playoffs. They'll have plenty of opportunities to surpass the Marlins with another 10 games remaining against them. But they have three games left with the Cardinals, and they are done with the Cubs, Giants and Rockies, which makes it harder to directly impact these circumstances. The division provides almost as good as a chance. The Braves also have nine games left against the Phillies, a team which they have gone 7-2 against. However, this is a drastically different Philadelphia team than the one struggling the last time these two faced each other. The addition of 2008 AL Cy Young winner Cliff Lee has made their starting rotation much better, and on offense, they're killing the ball.
If the Braves are going to make a serious push, the next nine games should settle whether or not they are serious or not. These four games in LA will be followed by a two-game set with the Nationals in Atlanta. And then next weekend, the Phillies will be at Turner Field again. If the Braves are any worse than three games or so out in the division and Wild Card by the end of next weekend, it may be time to look toward next year.
Now if the Braves are going to get serious about making this push, they'll need three things. One is what they've had all year: great starting pitching, a category in which they are second to none. Another is a consistent offense, which obviously has been a big problem. Adam Laroche has provided a spark to the lineup, going 9-18 with some big hits since his return. A glaring hole remains in right field though. As much as I love Matt Diaz, he does not hit right-handed pitching well enough to be out there every day. Ryan Church is a decent player but has not been healthy even though he did get back in the lineup yesterday. The potential solution is in AA, with right-fielder Jason Heyward. At 19 and turning 20 on Sunday, Heyward is hitting well over .400 with an on-base percentage over .500 to go along with 17 extra base hits in 28 games since his promotion to AA Mississippi. He is without a doubt the most highly touted prospect to come through the organization since Andruw Jones, and it's believed he could have an immediate impact if he gets the call-up, similar to how Jones impacted the team in his call-up in 1996. At 6-5 and 230 pounds, Heyward has drawn comparisons to Darryl Strawberry, and he has remarkable discipline at the plate. Heyward may be the shot in the arm the offense needs. And finally the Braves could use more bullpen help. The Braves will also be getting Tim Hudson back, which means that most likely Kenshin Kawakami would go to the bullpen. And when Omar Infante returns, the Braves will have their key bench bat back.
So the chance, albeit a small one, still remains for the Braves to make the playoffs. Should they fall out of it in the next two weeks, there will still be reasons to watch the team. Heyward most likely will be a September call-up if not in August. It's unlikely the Braves would be able to keep both Hudson and Javier Vazquez next season, so it will be important to see how Hudson does coming off his injury. But please Braves fans, when it comes to this playoff race, don't hold your breath. You most likely will wind up disappointed.
The Braves were 38-40 when I wrote my last blog on here. Since then; 17-13. At 55-53, they are now officially two thirds through the regular season. Coming into play today, they are 6.5 games back in the National League East race and 5 games back in the Wild Card. With 54 games left, they theoretically still have a chance. But the fact hasn't changed that the Braves are still a .500 baseball team that I'm not convinced is capable of going on the tear they need to make the playoffs.
Let's look at the Wild Card leader San Francisco, who at 60-48 would finish 90-72 if they were to continue their current pace. To get the 91 wins needed, the Braves would have to go 36-18 the rest of the way. That's a .667 winning percentage. Two wins for every three games. It's not impossible but very hard to do. Clearly the many games the Braves blew earlier this year, as well as the three games they blew on the road right before the All-Star break are coming back to haunt them. They got a brutal wakeup call last weekend when the MLB-best Dodgers came into Turner Field and dominated, outscoring the Braves 17-5 and taking two out of three games. In reality, the Braves were very fortunate to win the one game they did.
And now tonight they start a four game series in Los Angeles. They'll need at least a split, and probably three out of four to actually convince me they're still contenders. My biggest point in that I am not convinced the Braves have a realistic shot is that they are behind four teams in the Wild Card race, five once you factor in that the Cubs and Cardinals are tied atop the Central Division standings. So they have to catch up with at least four of those teams to get in the playoffs. They'll have plenty of opportunities to surpass the Marlins with another 10 games remaining against them. But they have three games left with the Cardinals, and they are done with the Cubs, Giants and Rockies, which makes it harder to directly impact these circumstances. The division provides almost as good as a chance. The Braves also have nine games left against the Phillies, a team which they have gone 7-2 against. However, this is a drastically different Philadelphia team than the one struggling the last time these two faced each other. The addition of 2008 AL Cy Young winner Cliff Lee has made their starting rotation much better, and on offense, they're killing the ball.
If the Braves are going to make a serious push, the next nine games should settle whether or not they are serious or not. These four games in LA will be followed by a two-game set with the Nationals in Atlanta. And then next weekend, the Phillies will be at Turner Field again. If the Braves are any worse than three games or so out in the division and Wild Card by the end of next weekend, it may be time to look toward next year.
Now if the Braves are going to get serious about making this push, they'll need three things. One is what they've had all year: great starting pitching, a category in which they are second to none. Another is a consistent offense, which obviously has been a big problem. Adam Laroche has provided a spark to the lineup, going 9-18 with some big hits since his return. A glaring hole remains in right field though. As much as I love Matt Diaz, he does not hit right-handed pitching well enough to be out there every day. Ryan Church is a decent player but has not been healthy even though he did get back in the lineup yesterday. The potential solution is in AA, with right-fielder Jason Heyward. At 19 and turning 20 on Sunday, Heyward is hitting well over .400 with an on-base percentage over .500 to go along with 17 extra base hits in 28 games since his promotion to AA Mississippi. He is without a doubt the most highly touted prospect to come through the organization since Andruw Jones, and it's believed he could have an immediate impact if he gets the call-up, similar to how Jones impacted the team in his call-up in 1996. At 6-5 and 230 pounds, Heyward has drawn comparisons to Darryl Strawberry, and he has remarkable discipline at the plate. Heyward may be the shot in the arm the offense needs. And finally the Braves could use more bullpen help. The Braves will also be getting Tim Hudson back, which means that most likely Kenshin Kawakami would go to the bullpen. And when Omar Infante returns, the Braves will have their key bench bat back.
So the chance, albeit a small one, still remains for the Braves to make the playoffs. Should they fall out of it in the next two weeks, there will still be reasons to watch the team. Heyward most likely will be a September call-up if not in August. It's unlikely the Braves would be able to keep both Hudson and Javier Vazquez next season, so it will be important to see how Hudson does coming off his injury. But please Braves fans, when it comes to this playoff race, don't hold your breath. You most likely will wind up disappointed.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Braves Update and All-Star Picks
The Braves finally look like they are playing as a team after their sweep of the Phillies, but has my opinion changed of the overall direction of their season? Not much. I'll admit, it's hard to write them off, now that they stand just two games out of first place. However, they remain fourth in the division standings, and they will face the MLB-worst Nationals, who have been a thorn in their side, this weekend in Washington. If the Braves take care of business and sweep Washington, maybe I'll begin to warm up, but my diagnosis remains largely unchanged. The Phillies series was impressive. The Braves began to hit with runners in scoring position, Bobby Cox managed more aggressively, the pitching continued to be outstanding, and maybe most important of all, the Braves played with hunger and swagger. If they continue to play that way, then certainly they've got a shot to win the division. However, keep in mind that the Phillies have been playing terrible as of late, and the division is still a weak one. Martin Prado has finally replaced Kelly Johnson as the starting second baseman, but it's unrealistic probably to expect him to continue his hot streak. The platoon of Garret Anderson and Matt Diaz has been playing well lately, but I don't think they are be the long-term solution for this season. The Braves still need an impact power bat to play one of the corner outfield spots, preferably right field, if they expect to seriously compete. All I'm saying is, don't get your hopes up too much. And to get one that would seriously help, they'd have to give up one of their stud prospects or maybe someone on the team that they wouldn't want to lose.
And now my 2009 All-Star Game picks. These are the guys I think deserve it, keeping in mind every team must be represented.
Starters in Bold
National League:
C – Brian McCann – ATL, Yadier Molina – STL
1B – Albert Pujols – STL, Prince Fielder – MIL, Adrian Gonzalez – SD, Lance Berkman – HOU
2B – Chase Utley – PHI, Orlando Hudson – LAD
3B – Pablo Sandoval – SF, David Wright – NYM, Ryan Zimmerman - WAS
SS – Hanley Ramirez – FLA, Miguel Tejada – HOU
OF – Raul Ibanez – PHI, Ryan Braun – MIL, Justin Upton – ARI, Brad Hawpe – COL, Carlos Beltran – NYM, Carlos Lee – HOU, Adam Dunn - WAS
SP – Tim Lincecum – SF, Dan Haren – ARI, Matt Cain – SF, Johnny Cueto – CIN, Jair Jurrjens – ATL, Javier Vazquez – ATL, Zach Duke – PIT, Randy Wells – CHC, Jason Marquis - COL
RP – Johnathan Broxton – LAD, Ryan Franklin – STL, Rafael Soriano – ATL, Heath Bell – SD
American League:
C – Joe Mauer – MIN, AJ Piercynzski - CWS
1B – Justin Morneau – MIN, Kevin Youkillis – BOS, Mark Teixeira – NYY, Russel Branyan – SEA
2B – Aaron Hill – TOR, Ian Kinsler – TEX
3B – Evan Longoria – TB, Brandon Inge – DET
SS – Derek Jeter – NYY, Jason Bartlett – TB, Marco Scutaro – TOR
OF – Jason Bay – BOS, Torii Hunter – LAA, Ichiro – SEA, Johnny Damon – NYY, Ben Zobrist – TB, Adam Jones – BAL, Shin-soo Choo – CLE
SP – Zack Greinke – KC, Roy Halladay – TOR, Edwin Jackson – DET, Felix Hernandez – SEA, Jered Weaver – LAA, Kevin Millwood – TEX, Justin Verlander – DET, Mark Buerhle – CWS, Josh Beckett - BOS
RP – Joe Nathan – MIN, Mariano Rivera – NYY, David Aarsma – SEA, Andrew Bailey - OAK
And now my 2009 All-Star Game picks. These are the guys I think deserve it, keeping in mind every team must be represented.
Starters in Bold
National League:
C – Brian McCann – ATL, Yadier Molina – STL
1B – Albert Pujols – STL, Prince Fielder – MIL, Adrian Gonzalez – SD, Lance Berkman – HOU
2B – Chase Utley – PHI, Orlando Hudson – LAD
3B – Pablo Sandoval – SF, David Wright – NYM, Ryan Zimmerman - WAS
SS – Hanley Ramirez – FLA, Miguel Tejada – HOU
OF – Raul Ibanez – PHI, Ryan Braun – MIL, Justin Upton – ARI, Brad Hawpe – COL, Carlos Beltran – NYM, Carlos Lee – HOU, Adam Dunn - WAS
SP – Tim Lincecum – SF, Dan Haren – ARI, Matt Cain – SF, Johnny Cueto – CIN, Jair Jurrjens – ATL, Javier Vazquez – ATL, Zach Duke – PIT, Randy Wells – CHC, Jason Marquis - COL
RP – Johnathan Broxton – LAD, Ryan Franklin – STL, Rafael Soriano – ATL, Heath Bell – SD
American League:
C – Joe Mauer – MIN, AJ Piercynzski - CWS
1B – Justin Morneau – MIN, Kevin Youkillis – BOS, Mark Teixeira – NYY, Russel Branyan – SEA
2B – Aaron Hill – TOR, Ian Kinsler – TEX
3B – Evan Longoria – TB, Brandon Inge – DET
SS – Derek Jeter – NYY, Jason Bartlett – TB, Marco Scutaro – TOR
OF – Jason Bay – BOS, Torii Hunter – LAA, Ichiro – SEA, Johnny Damon – NYY, Ben Zobrist – TB, Adam Jones – BAL, Shin-soo Choo – CLE
SP – Zack Greinke – KC, Roy Halladay – TOR, Edwin Jackson – DET, Felix Hernandez – SEA, Jered Weaver – LAA, Kevin Millwood – TEX, Justin Verlander – DET, Mark Buerhle – CWS, Josh Beckett - BOS
RP – Joe Nathan – MIN, Mariano Rivera – NYY, David Aarsma – SEA, Andrew Bailey - OAK
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Braves Are What They Are
You'll hear plenty of people say the Atlanta Braves' upcoming series, which starts tonight against Philadelphia at Turner Field, is the series which will determine the season for the team or determine what they have. At 35-40 and practically halfway through, I think it should be obvious all that has already been determined. When comedian George Carlin explained why he didn't rail on politicians as much in his act, his reasoning was that he realized that they all came from American families and American universities, and what we have is the best we have to offer. Whether or not you agree with that, the parallel is blatant. This is as good as the Braves are going to get, and they likely will get worse before the season is over.
It's tempting for people to point out that with the Braves playing about as bad as possible, that they are only five games out of first place, and with a sweep they could get to within two games of the first place Phillies. But that's honestly more of a reflection on how mediocre the division really is. Also, factor in the Phillies and Mets have played well below their potential, and that's the only reason the Braves are anywhere near them. Even if the Braves were to pull off a sweep and get within two games of Philadelphia, they still have to catch both the Mets and Marlins as well. And let's do a little quick math. The Braves are currently 35-40, a winning percentage of .467. Let's say that it will take 90 wins to win the division. To do that, the Braves would have to go 55-32 the rest of the season, a winning percentage of .632. And even though the wild card will likely come from the NL Central, let's say the Braves were going to make a run at that. So let's say it will take 87 wins to get the wild card. Even then, the Braves will have to 52-35, a winning percentage of .598. So we're looking at the Braves having to play at least .600 baseball the rest of the way to even have a hope at the postseason. Can you REALISTICALLY expect that from one of the worst offenses in the league?
There are some factors you could point to that could give the Braves some hope in winning and maybe even sweeping the series. The Phillies pitching has been terrible lately, almost as bad as the Braves offense, and something has to give. The Braves will be throwing Derek Lowe, Jair Jurrjens and Javier Vazquez this series, and they face Joe Blanton tonight, who they have owned. That leads me to the first reality check of this blog...we're talking about the Atlanta Braves. This is the perfect time for them to take a 4-1 loss to Blanton tonight and to be swept at home by the Phillies and subsequently buried in the race. After all, the Phillies have won their last nine games at Turner Field.
Many fans are still operating under the thought that the Braves are one big bat away from being division champions and going deep in the playoffs. Here's reality check number two....the only three bats that would make that kind of impact are Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez. And none of those will be in Bobby Cox's lineup card anytime soon. Think about it; if Mark Teixiera wasn't the difference maker, Jermaine Dye certainly can't be. It's understood that if the Braves had anywhere near a good offense, they'd be in first place and in pennant contention. Their pitching staff is as good as any. Ignore Lowe's (7-6, 4.53 ERA) last three starts, all of which have been horrible, and he's been what was expected of him. Ignore the win-loss records of Jair Jurrjens (5-6, 2.93) and Javier Vazquez (5-7, 3.04), and you could make an argument for either one of them to be the National League starter in the All-Star game. But their lack of run support is going to cost them both a spot on the roster and Cy Young consideration. That's not to mention Tommy Hanson (4-0, 2.48), who, if he keeps it up, will probably be Rookie of the Year.
But the Braves just do not have an offense. Jeff Francoeur has gone all the way from the real-life version of Roy Hobbs (as penned by Sports Illustrated three years ago) to one of the five worst outfielders in the game. Kelly Johnson has been absolutely terrible, and is regressing rather than progressing like he should be at 27. Yunel Escobar is still talented and having a respectable year, but he's now seen as a hassle in the clubhouse, and he seems to have given up on hustling. Finally Casey Kotchman, who is good defensively, has provided a whopping two home runs at the first base position. Granted he's never been more than a 15-20 home run guy, two won't cut it. Which brings me to reality check number three...it's time for the Braves to realize they won't be serious contenders this year and enter the sellers market and rebuilding mode. You could make an argument that in some ways the rebuilding mode, even if not self-consciously, has begun. Atlanta didn't make the play for a power-hitting corner outfielder that they needed to in the offseason, but rather brought in an aging Garret Anderson to serve as a stopgap. Anderson and Kotchman are both likely stopgaps for the two 19-year-olds (leftfielder Jason Heyward and first baseman Freddie Freeman) in the farm system who are supposed to be the next big thing. But take that with a gargantuan grain of iodized salt; Francoeur was the next big thing not too long ago.
You could say that Frank Wren's job is likely on the line (There seems to be some tension between John Scheurholz and him about how the Smoltz and Glavine situations were handled.), and that he may try and go balls out for the division. But if the Braves continue down that path without a realistic shot at winning a world series, they will forever be stuck in this hole of mediocrity. Now besides the top prospects such as Heyward and Freeman in the system, McCann, Hanson, Nate Mclouth and Jurjjens should be seen as untouchables (unless there's a total mind-blowing deal for Jurjjens). Everybody else should be seen as expendable. It'd be hard to part with Vazquez and Lowe, but they could net you a good return. Tim Hudson will be back later this year, which will give the Braves six good starting pitchers. Another couple that could be dealt are relievers Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzalez.
It's realistically going to be hard to trade Francoeur or Johnson for much more than a bat boy, some Gatorade coolers, a sample of dirt from the bullpen and free tickets to a Coldplay concert because those two are so terrible. Escobar still has value and should be dealt. And finally we have Chipper Jones. It may very well be time for him to go. I know, you can say it'll never happen, and you're probably right. As of now, he's in the worst slump of his career, but as good of a hitter as he is, he'll snap out of it. And if he happens to get red-hot before the trade deadline, that's a perfect opportunity to send him to a team and get a nice little rip-off. But in looking toward the future, I'd say Chipper's time is running thin. The only problem with letting him go however, is that it would be a public relations disaster and lower an already pathetic attendance that much lower.
Finally Bobby Cox's ship needs to sail. You can keep him the rest of this year, since the team isn't really going anywhere. But in the offseason, he should be given the option of retirement or being fired. Cox has grown too old and is not the aggressive manager he once was and needs to be. The Braves are not a power-hitting team, and yet they don't steal bases. They don't hit and run; they don't bunt runners over. They don't do things that can generate more runs rather than sitting back and waiting on the three-run homer that hardly ever comes.
It's time for the Braves to wake up and smell the roses, and maybe a sweep at the hands of the Phillies could do that. This is what they are going to be the rest of the season. Why not trade away what they can, and get some great talent in return and look towards contending the next few years? In the end, that's what the fans really deserve, isn't it?
It's tempting for people to point out that with the Braves playing about as bad as possible, that they are only five games out of first place, and with a sweep they could get to within two games of the first place Phillies. But that's honestly more of a reflection on how mediocre the division really is. Also, factor in the Phillies and Mets have played well below their potential, and that's the only reason the Braves are anywhere near them. Even if the Braves were to pull off a sweep and get within two games of Philadelphia, they still have to catch both the Mets and Marlins as well. And let's do a little quick math. The Braves are currently 35-40, a winning percentage of .467. Let's say that it will take 90 wins to win the division. To do that, the Braves would have to go 55-32 the rest of the season, a winning percentage of .632. And even though the wild card will likely come from the NL Central, let's say the Braves were going to make a run at that. So let's say it will take 87 wins to get the wild card. Even then, the Braves will have to 52-35, a winning percentage of .598. So we're looking at the Braves having to play at least .600 baseball the rest of the way to even have a hope at the postseason. Can you REALISTICALLY expect that from one of the worst offenses in the league?
There are some factors you could point to that could give the Braves some hope in winning and maybe even sweeping the series. The Phillies pitching has been terrible lately, almost as bad as the Braves offense, and something has to give. The Braves will be throwing Derek Lowe, Jair Jurrjens and Javier Vazquez this series, and they face Joe Blanton tonight, who they have owned. That leads me to the first reality check of this blog...we're talking about the Atlanta Braves. This is the perfect time for them to take a 4-1 loss to Blanton tonight and to be swept at home by the Phillies and subsequently buried in the race. After all, the Phillies have won their last nine games at Turner Field.
Many fans are still operating under the thought that the Braves are one big bat away from being division champions and going deep in the playoffs. Here's reality check number two....the only three bats that would make that kind of impact are Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez. And none of those will be in Bobby Cox's lineup card anytime soon. Think about it; if Mark Teixiera wasn't the difference maker, Jermaine Dye certainly can't be. It's understood that if the Braves had anywhere near a good offense, they'd be in first place and in pennant contention. Their pitching staff is as good as any. Ignore Lowe's (7-6, 4.53 ERA) last three starts, all of which have been horrible, and he's been what was expected of him. Ignore the win-loss records of Jair Jurrjens (5-6, 2.93) and Javier Vazquez (5-7, 3.04), and you could make an argument for either one of them to be the National League starter in the All-Star game. But their lack of run support is going to cost them both a spot on the roster and Cy Young consideration. That's not to mention Tommy Hanson (4-0, 2.48), who, if he keeps it up, will probably be Rookie of the Year.
But the Braves just do not have an offense. Jeff Francoeur has gone all the way from the real-life version of Roy Hobbs (as penned by Sports Illustrated three years ago) to one of the five worst outfielders in the game. Kelly Johnson has been absolutely terrible, and is regressing rather than progressing like he should be at 27. Yunel Escobar is still talented and having a respectable year, but he's now seen as a hassle in the clubhouse, and he seems to have given up on hustling. Finally Casey Kotchman, who is good defensively, has provided a whopping two home runs at the first base position. Granted he's never been more than a 15-20 home run guy, two won't cut it. Which brings me to reality check number three...it's time for the Braves to realize they won't be serious contenders this year and enter the sellers market and rebuilding mode. You could make an argument that in some ways the rebuilding mode, even if not self-consciously, has begun. Atlanta didn't make the play for a power-hitting corner outfielder that they needed to in the offseason, but rather brought in an aging Garret Anderson to serve as a stopgap. Anderson and Kotchman are both likely stopgaps for the two 19-year-olds (leftfielder Jason Heyward and first baseman Freddie Freeman) in the farm system who are supposed to be the next big thing. But take that with a gargantuan grain of iodized salt; Francoeur was the next big thing not too long ago.
You could say that Frank Wren's job is likely on the line (There seems to be some tension between John Scheurholz and him about how the Smoltz and Glavine situations were handled.), and that he may try and go balls out for the division. But if the Braves continue down that path without a realistic shot at winning a world series, they will forever be stuck in this hole of mediocrity. Now besides the top prospects such as Heyward and Freeman in the system, McCann, Hanson, Nate Mclouth and Jurjjens should be seen as untouchables (unless there's a total mind-blowing deal for Jurjjens). Everybody else should be seen as expendable. It'd be hard to part with Vazquez and Lowe, but they could net you a good return. Tim Hudson will be back later this year, which will give the Braves six good starting pitchers. Another couple that could be dealt are relievers Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzalez.
It's realistically going to be hard to trade Francoeur or Johnson for much more than a bat boy, some Gatorade coolers, a sample of dirt from the bullpen and free tickets to a Coldplay concert because those two are so terrible. Escobar still has value and should be dealt. And finally we have Chipper Jones. It may very well be time for him to go. I know, you can say it'll never happen, and you're probably right. As of now, he's in the worst slump of his career, but as good of a hitter as he is, he'll snap out of it. And if he happens to get red-hot before the trade deadline, that's a perfect opportunity to send him to a team and get a nice little rip-off. But in looking toward the future, I'd say Chipper's time is running thin. The only problem with letting him go however, is that it would be a public relations disaster and lower an already pathetic attendance that much lower.
Finally Bobby Cox's ship needs to sail. You can keep him the rest of this year, since the team isn't really going anywhere. But in the offseason, he should be given the option of retirement or being fired. Cox has grown too old and is not the aggressive manager he once was and needs to be. The Braves are not a power-hitting team, and yet they don't steal bases. They don't hit and run; they don't bunt runners over. They don't do things that can generate more runs rather than sitting back and waiting on the three-run homer that hardly ever comes.
It's time for the Braves to wake up and smell the roses, and maybe a sweep at the hands of the Phillies could do that. This is what they are going to be the rest of the season. Why not trade away what they can, and get some great talent in return and look towards contending the next few years? In the end, that's what the fans really deserve, isn't it?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Big Scott
"You're Scott's son, aren't you?"That's the question I most often get in Dublin, Georgia, the place I call home. Once you see us both, listen to us talk, watch us adjust our glasses and use the same facial expressions, there's not much doubt I'm Scott Thompson's son. If you know us really well, you'll know we can both be completely sarcastic and quite dorky as well. Those of you who know him know he works tirelessly. He's been a real estate attorney for I believe 27 years. He's a historian, has authored books on the history of Dublin and Laurens County and publishes a weekly column in the Courier Herald. He's a member of the Dublin City school board, having been elected in 2005. He was a little league coach, and he's been involved with the Dublin High School band and baseball team. And that's just some of what he does.He also happens to be one of the more generous people you can run into, having given much money to kids and schools in the county, along with other charities and causes. And he lent a helping hand in making sure that every team member on Dublin's state championship athletic teams got their championship rings. He often quotes Winston Churchill, saying "We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give."We both share a love for writing. The highlight of my short career as a journalist so far has been covering a football game in Athens with him last September. As I sat in the press box, he was down on the field taking pictures between the hedges. And it was he who introduced me to baseball, which we both are very fond of. He was my coach for the majority of my little league career. I used to follow him to work a good bit when I was little, sporting a suit and all. Those days are gone now, but our bond isn't.Back in January, he had a heart attack. Luckily his heart problems were realized soon enough to avoid anything worse. Even when I got the call, I wasn't really panicked. Because the man endures. And even though I felt uncertain in those couple of months, I knew in the end, he'd be fine. It's certainly made me appreciate spending time with him a great deal more.Along with my mom, my dad has been my rock. He's been to countless band concerts, practices, marching band performances, baseball games, banquets, you name it. And even when other people have let me down, he's been by my side throughout it all, supporting me in all that I've done.Having a father that is so widely respected around the community as well as a grandfather who was the same way, I often find myself wondering if I will live up to that, and I put a good bit of pressure on myself. The best advice my dad has given me is to be myself and follow my dreams.People can be amazed at how he rattles information off the top of his head like an encyclopedia, and I used to pretend not to know him when he did the twist in front of the entire band. But it's all him being him. I believe he's still very much a kid at heart.Big Scott is not perfect. He'll be the first to tell you there are things he could have done better. Like all the rest of us, he's only human. But in his number one job as a dad in a world that is in desperate need of more good ones, he gets an A+ from me.Happy (early) Father's Day.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A Few Quick Hits
After a long absence I'm back. Things have been pretty busy lately, but here's a few short thoughts.
* Watching this Sarah Palin-David Letterman thing unfold, I have to say that there's little doubt in my mind that the joke was directed at the 14-year old daughter. But here's a few things/questions:
1. The joke was in poor taste and not funny at all.
2. The joke was a obvious sexist one, but the outcry is not quite as much as it would have been if Palin were an liberal woman, and Letterman a conservative.
3. If the 14-year old daughter of Palin is now fair game, does that mean that the Obama daughters are also in play for such wisecracks? It would be interesting to get Mrs. Obama's opinion on this whole ordeal.
4. Should Letterman be fired? That should be up to CBS, not any kind of government legislation.
5. How come nobody has talked about how this might piss Alex Rodriguez off? I personally wouldn't take a joke about me committing statutory rape very lightly.
* When Christians as a whole become more Christ-like in their actions and not so judgemental and hypocritical, other people's opinion of them will certainly rise.
* Supporters of democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes should ask themselves this question: Why do they support a candidate who has already proven he can polarize a state and lose an election as an incumbent with a huge money advantage?
* The video on the news of the cop pulling over the ambulance and putting the EMT in a chokehold because he didn't yield at a yield sign (despite having a patient in the back) shows that unfortunately, there are some law enforcement officers who feel they are above the law. I see this a great deal in Milledgeville.
* While I would say I generally watch Fox News more frequently than other news networks, I will say the new Fox Nation commercial they've got is WAY over the top.
* The radical who shot the abortion doctor in Kansas has succeeded in giving the media the opportunity to paint the entire pro-life movement as a fringe one. I watched a PBS documentary the other night, with two colleagues of Dr. Tiller basically saying the "anti-abortion" people are domestic terrorists. This deranged man obviously was - the peaceful protesters are not. It's sad that a disagreement could lead to a murder. Maybe one day people will accept that abortion is not a black and white, clear-cut issue. There are way more gray areas involved, and regardless of whether you agree with it or not, sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances. But people need to be able to make their own choices, which is why I am pro-choice. But let me remind you that not all people opposed to abortion or abortion rights are going to go kill abortion doctors. Honest disagreements and civil discourse is part of America.
* Watching this Sarah Palin-David Letterman thing unfold, I have to say that there's little doubt in my mind that the joke was directed at the 14-year old daughter. But here's a few things/questions:
1. The joke was in poor taste and not funny at all.
2. The joke was a obvious sexist one, but the outcry is not quite as much as it would have been if Palin were an liberal woman, and Letterman a conservative.
3. If the 14-year old daughter of Palin is now fair game, does that mean that the Obama daughters are also in play for such wisecracks? It would be interesting to get Mrs. Obama's opinion on this whole ordeal.
4. Should Letterman be fired? That should be up to CBS, not any kind of government legislation.
5. How come nobody has talked about how this might piss Alex Rodriguez off? I personally wouldn't take a joke about me committing statutory rape very lightly.
* When Christians as a whole become more Christ-like in their actions and not so judgemental and hypocritical, other people's opinion of them will certainly rise.
* Supporters of democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes should ask themselves this question: Why do they support a candidate who has already proven he can polarize a state and lose an election as an incumbent with a huge money advantage?
* The video on the news of the cop pulling over the ambulance and putting the EMT in a chokehold because he didn't yield at a yield sign (despite having a patient in the back) shows that unfortunately, there are some law enforcement officers who feel they are above the law. I see this a great deal in Milledgeville.
* While I would say I generally watch Fox News more frequently than other news networks, I will say the new Fox Nation commercial they've got is WAY over the top.
* The radical who shot the abortion doctor in Kansas has succeeded in giving the media the opportunity to paint the entire pro-life movement as a fringe one. I watched a PBS documentary the other night, with two colleagues of Dr. Tiller basically saying the "anti-abortion" people are domestic terrorists. This deranged man obviously was - the peaceful protesters are not. It's sad that a disagreement could lead to a murder. Maybe one day people will accept that abortion is not a black and white, clear-cut issue. There are way more gray areas involved, and regardless of whether you agree with it or not, sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances. But people need to be able to make their own choices, which is why I am pro-choice. But let me remind you that not all people opposed to abortion or abortion rights are going to go kill abortion doctors. Honest disagreements and civil discourse is part of America.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Can someone please tell me....
why in the hell the first question about President Obama's pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court is whether they will be a woman or Hispanic or black or whatever? Once again, we miss the entire point about the Supreme Court and more broadly the judicial branch. Look no further than your basic government class in school, and you'll see the Judicial Branch is an independent branch of government and was designed to be politically independent by making federal judgeships lifetime appointments under the Constitution. Obama's criteria in his choice of who will be the next person to sit on the Supreme Court should not include any kind of empathy toward a particular group. Can I get a 14th Amendment shout out? Every time this situation comes up, a controversy begins, usually of political prowess. And the main political issue that trumps all is that of abortion. Is the judge pro-life or pro-choice? Right now, every pro-life and pro-choice group you can think of is preparing responses to all the potential choices, and if that choice happens to lean personally one way or another, the other side will lose its bananas. Again, we miss the point that the judicial branch is supposed to INTERPRET and APPLY the laws according to the Constitution, not make up its own legislation. That would be the LEGISLATIVE Branch's job. But nowadays, and this went on with Bush too, it's all about gaining a political edge and putting in judges who will mirror your views. Simply applying the law is merely an afterthought.
It's not always black and white:
I just completed the spring semester at college. In my intro to the law class, I was asked to write a three page response to an article regarding the issue of American "torture" of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and how President Obama has handled the issue. The author took a shot at Obama for side-swapping the issue and not pressing for prosecutions, even though he campaigned strongly on shutting the facility down, which he has indeed signed an executive order for. But maybe President Obama realized that campaigning is easier than executing, and that situations are often complicated ones. I never really warmed up to President Bush, but I always resented him being called a war criminal by people who praise other presidents who made similarly morally gray choices. Whether the acts such as water-boarding and walling should be considered torture or not is beside the point. Let's allow the proposition that it is torture: was it justifiable? The radical anti-bushies would say no. Some of those same ones will praise other presidents who made even tougher decisions. Let's take a look at some comparisons. I'm not saying these decisions are necessarily wrong, they're just rhetorical questions.
- If water-boarding and sleep deprivation are war crimes, what is dropping an atomic bomb on thousands of innocent civilians?
- Bush holding terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay has been called a war crime by some. Go to your google box and type in Japanese Americans, "war relocation camps".
- Bush was berated for denying habeas corpus rights to the detainees by some of the same people who praise Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus to American citizens during the Civil War. Democrats love to praise Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Espionage Act, which made it illegal for Americans to use critical language about the government.
- Finally we can't forget all those who clamored for a third Bill Clinton term, the same Bill Clinton who backed the NATO bombing of Serbia, which killed hundreds of innocent civilians. His defense was that the bombing helped prevent a bloodier offensive, the same type of argument used over and over again by presidents.
It's not enough to say each situation is unique, and one is situation is more morally demanding than the other. There are just some complex questions that go along with these issues? Did dropping the atomic bomb save thousands of other lives down the road? Did water-boarding these suspects help prevent violent acts against Americans akin to 9/11? We may never know the true answer, but maybe President Obama understands it's not always a black and white thing. Sometimes you have to be morally gray.
Two years down
I just completed by second year of college, which flew by even more quickly than the first. I'm more than grateful for the three new people that came into my life over the course of the year. I still like the college very much, despite some housekeeping flaws and asinine policies. The people, students and most of the professors are great. I would like to see more people from this part of the state go to the school.
It's not always black and white:
I just completed the spring semester at college. In my intro to the law class, I was asked to write a three page response to an article regarding the issue of American "torture" of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and how President Obama has handled the issue. The author took a shot at Obama for side-swapping the issue and not pressing for prosecutions, even though he campaigned strongly on shutting the facility down, which he has indeed signed an executive order for. But maybe President Obama realized that campaigning is easier than executing, and that situations are often complicated ones. I never really warmed up to President Bush, but I always resented him being called a war criminal by people who praise other presidents who made similarly morally gray choices. Whether the acts such as water-boarding and walling should be considered torture or not is beside the point. Let's allow the proposition that it is torture: was it justifiable? The radical anti-bushies would say no. Some of those same ones will praise other presidents who made even tougher decisions. Let's take a look at some comparisons. I'm not saying these decisions are necessarily wrong, they're just rhetorical questions.
- If water-boarding and sleep deprivation are war crimes, what is dropping an atomic bomb on thousands of innocent civilians?
- Bush holding terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay has been called a war crime by some. Go to your google box and type in Japanese Americans, "war relocation camps".
- Bush was berated for denying habeas corpus rights to the detainees by some of the same people who praise Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus to American citizens during the Civil War. Democrats love to praise Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Espionage Act, which made it illegal for Americans to use critical language about the government.
- Finally we can't forget all those who clamored for a third Bill Clinton term, the same Bill Clinton who backed the NATO bombing of Serbia, which killed hundreds of innocent civilians. His defense was that the bombing helped prevent a bloodier offensive, the same type of argument used over and over again by presidents.
It's not enough to say each situation is unique, and one is situation is more morally demanding than the other. There are just some complex questions that go along with these issues? Did dropping the atomic bomb save thousands of other lives down the road? Did water-boarding these suspects help prevent violent acts against Americans akin to 9/11? We may never know the true answer, but maybe President Obama understands it's not always a black and white thing. Sometimes you have to be morally gray.
Two years down
I just completed by second year of college, which flew by even more quickly than the first. I'm more than grateful for the three new people that came into my life over the course of the year. I still like the college very much, despite some housekeeping flaws and asinine policies. The people, students and most of the professors are great. I would like to see more people from this part of the state go to the school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
